New PWCG Issues Thread

[Highwayman]

Not doubting you guys at all, but just to counter that we haven’t seen that on our side, if anything we’ve seen more ‘lethal’ AAA at airfields and target areas as we’ve been running in with out P47’s.

 

Our campaign was started fresh in 12.2.3.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Highwayman

[Nocke]

Yes, AAA is there. Just no buildings. Do you see hangars?

[Highwayman]

28 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Yes, AAA is there. Just no buildings. Do you see hangars?

You know what, I don’t I hadn’t thought about those, I’ve just been focused on all the planes, vehicles and AAA. I’ll climb back in my BoX

Edited May 31, 2021 by Highwayman

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Yes, AAA is there. Just no buildings. Do you see hangars?

 

Most of the WWII fields, especially the rough ones, do not have any hangar structures near them.   I get the building placement from the game install in \BoS\data\Template.   it's mostly emplacements.   The only recently updated file s the Rheinland railroads, which was updated just last month.  Other than that, they have not changed in the past year or so.

[TheSNAFU]

Unless the removal of the hangers and camo netting was intentional than something introduced recently has caused them all to disappear. Additionally there are no grounds crew/troops walking about anymore.  The result at least in my opinion is a less immersive rather uninteresting environment. As for AAA there is plenty around my field but I’m seeing almost none firing during missions even when over the front lines. There is also no smoke or fire that I can see even at the 3/100 setting. 
 

None of this is a complaint, to the contrary PWCG is the only way I’ve played the game for years. 
 

Just reporting what I’m seeing or in this case

not seeing. 

[=EAustral=Topeka]

Better every time,thnxs!

[PatrickAWlson]

On 5/31/2021 at 7:26 PM, TheSNAFU said:

Unless the removal of the hangers and camo netting was intentional than something introduced recently has caused them all to disappear. Additionally there are no grounds crew/troops walking about anymore.  The result at least in my opinion is a less immersive rather uninteresting environment. As for AAA there is plenty around my field but I’m seeing almost none firing during missions even when over the front lines. There is also no smoke or fire that I can see even at the 3/100 setting. 
 

None of this is a complaint, to the contrary PWCG is the only way I’ve played the game for years. 
 

Just reporting what I’m seeing or in this case

not seeing. 

 

Always appreciate feedback, even if it's not what I want to hear.  Was looking at this and I do not see permanent structures on airfields.  I do see lots of static trucks and planes.  My previous comment still stands: with BoS most rough airfields do not have many fixed structures.  Still should be some ... I think.

 

When I looked at the airfield I felt that there were too many trucks and planes.  Need something different.

 

Netting has never been a thing unless it's a static plane with netting.  Which static plane you get depends on the plane the unit is flying.  I might not have a static plane with netting associated with the plane type the squadron is flying.  I can probably do something about that since the actual plane under the net doesn't matter too much.

 

So - to do

1. What permanent structures should be on the field?  Make sure they get there.

2. Do not overdo static planes and trucks.

3. Add netted planes wherever possible.

4. Instead of planes and trucks use other static components for the airfield.

[Nocke]

My feeling was that the stuff on airfields disappeared after you did some optimizations related to linked entities, one or two versions ago. I believe to remember that, in our coop campaign, we were stationed on an airfield with buildings, which after that new version had disappeared. Unfortunately I do not have missions or screenshots, but maybe this can serve as a hint?

Thx again for all your work!

[Nocke]

Something seems to have happened between version 11.11.2 and 12.2.0.

I created a campaign with both versions, on the Kuban map, being stationed at Severskaya.

No settings have been changed from default, only the mission box has been made larger to make sure the start airfield is inside.

Here is the field with 11.11.2:

 

and here with 12.2.0:

 

 

 

 

 

I generated error reports, but the zips are too large to add them here. Would they be of use for you? If so, how could I send them?

 

best regards,

 

Nocke

[PatrickAWlson]

@216th_Nocke Thanks for the offer but I fixed it a couple of hours ago.  As you suspected, the airfield structures were accidentally eliminated in a different change.   While I was at it I also added netted versions for some of the planes and reduced the number of static planes hanging around the field.  

[Spotnl]

On 4/30/2021 at 4:21 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Three things:

Try taking 1 days leave and generating another mission.  

Try generating a campaign/mission for a different unit on a different map

Try generating a campaign/mission for a different unit on the Bodenplatte map

 

 

Hi, sorry for the long time between replies, had a very busy month (a big move and such). I noticed that IL2 got a new patch and tried it again today. Worked like a charm, no idea if it is due to the patch or the gremlins have left my computer. Thank you for your help in any case.

[Highwayman]

Feature request time!

 

I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add a 'Plane's owned' that could be linked to co-op players rather than as a global value?

 

I ask as we run the tool in co-op exclusively and 2 of our 4 primary pilots that are flying this campaign do not have Normandy. As a result, the generated missions give us mixed P47 D22's and D28's. Whilst that's OK for the two of us with Normandy, it doesn't work for the other two, and it would be nice if the generator was able to assign aircraft to the co-op players that it knows they own, rather than on the global value of the generating player. Quite often we'll end up with the two of us that have the D22 in 28's and the other two that don't in D22's and I have to swap them over every time I generate a mission. Easily done, provided there are enough D28's, but it would be great if there was an option of configuring planes owned for each co-op player.

 

Further to this, when I've tried to 'swap' D22's for D28's in the Equipment request, the drop down is blank. This has happened in 12.2.3 (where the campaign started), .4, .5 and .6. I wasn't sure if this was meant for an airframe change (p47 to p51) for example. but my understanding was that it was designed for airframe versions, such as Spitfire MkIXe to MkXIV

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Highwayman

[PatrickAWlson]

@Highwayman

The first part is going to take some effort but it makes sense.

The second part is a bug.  The feature is designed to be wide open, with the only restrictions being which side you are on and aircraft in service.  The P47 D28 was available throughout the Bodenplatte time frame so it should be an option.

[greybeard_52]

Of course this happens to me only with PWCG missions, hence I'm posting the issue here.

[PatrickAWlson]

@greybeard_52 There is nothing in mission creation that causes that.  At least that I am aware of.  I have seen the same thing recently but I can't see how this is related to PWCG.  If anybody has better information it is welcome.

[justin_z3r0]

2 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

Of course this happens to me only with PWCG missions, hence I'm posting the issue here.

I have seen this happen in the built in game career too. Don’t think it’s related to pwcg

[RedeyeStorm]

Have seen it in regular career missions as well. Still no idea what triggers it.

[PatrickAWlson]

@greybeard_52 You can post in "Complaints".  Or you can complain here but I'm not going to do anything about it  

[greybeard_52]

23 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I'm not going to do anything about it

Thanks anyway! I guessed it was PWCG-related, so I posted here as an help to point  out a possible bug to fix. Nevermind.

[busdriver]

@greybeard_52 this problem has been around for years, sometimes it remains in sight and the next mission it goes away.

 

[greybeard_52]

6 minutes ago, busdriver said:

this problem has been around for years, sometimes it remains in sight and the next mission it goes away.

Thanks busdriver. Honestly, I can hardly recall this happening in stock careers or missions, while it happens always to me while playing PWCG missions... Quite curious...

[Panzerlang]

I think this is a bug.

Using the 'Equipment Request' to switch all the planes from Fw190 to G2 (JG51), it works but subsequently when trying to administer skins only the Fw190 appears as the squadron planes. G2s are available to the pilots, they appear in the depot page but it's not possible to assign G2 skins to the pilots in skin management.

[Panzerlang]

Actually, under 'Intelligence' and then 'Depot Report', most of the LW units are missing from the page (was so before I played with the 'Equipment Request') and has become worse over time. When I first noticed this bug there were two non-fighter units showing, now there is only one Stuka unit showing. The Russian units all show, the Italian units appear to have a similar issue to the LW. 

The 'Intelligence Report' pages appear to be ok.

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

Actually, under 'Intelligence' and then 'Depot Report', most of the LW units are missing from the page (was so before I played with the 'Equipment Request') and has become worse over time. When I first noticed this bug there were two non-fighter units showing, now there is only one Stuka unit showing. The Russian units all show, the Italian units appear to have a similar issue to the LW. 

The 'Intelligence Report' pages appear to be ok.

 

Please press "Report Error" on the campaign main chalkboard screen and post the zip.

 

That was a little short - appreciate the feedback.  Report Error allows me to see your campaign as you see it.  Some PWCG issues can have pretty obscure roots as they are caused by a campaign evolving into a state that was not accounted for.  Trying to recreate them on my own would involve me almost recreating somebodies campaign, which is near impossible.  Thanks.

Edited June 10, 2021 by PatrickAWlson

[Almenas]

The minimum number of pilots still available for squadrons to be active is 10 as far as I know. Would it be possible to lower the number, e.g. to 5? I have not had any enemy contact in the Moscow map for a long time now.

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, Almenas said:

The minimum number of pilots still available for squadrons to be active is 10 as far as I know. Would it be possible to lower the number, e.g. to 5? I have not had any enemy contact in the Moscow map for a long time now.

 

Do an emergency resupply ...

Campaign Chalkboard->Intelligence->Emergency Resupply

[Panzerlang]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Please press "Report Error" on the campaign main chalkboard screen and post the zip.

 

That was a little short - appreciate the feedback.  Report Error allows me to see your campaign as you see it.  Some PWCG issues can have pretty obscure roots as they are caused by a campaign evolving into a state that was not accounted for.  Trying to recreate them on my own would involve me almost recreating somebodies campaign, which is near impossible.  Thanks.

 

PWCGErrorLog.zip

JG51202106101906298.zip

[Panzerlang]

Added finding: After flying a new mission I'm finding the planes I switched to in the 'Equipment Request' have reverted to the current squadron supply as noted under the bottom-right of the chalk board. I don't know if having to re-do the plane switch after each flown mission is working as intended?

TIA.

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

Added finding: After flying a new mission I'm finding the planes I switched to in the 'Equipment Request' have reverted to the current squadron supply as noted under the bottom-right of the chalk board. I don't know if having to re-do the plane switch after each flown mission is working as intended?

TIA.

 

That is always possible.   PWCG has replacement logic and it could easily choose to replace those planes.  To make them more permanent would take some doing.  I would have to implement something to:

1. Make them permanent and extra planes rather than the current simple swap algorithm

2. Make them removable from the unit

3. Make them replaceable on player request

4. Make them not replaceable for any other reason

[Panzerlang]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

That is always possible.   PWCG has replacement logic and it could easily choose to replace those planes.  To make them more permanent would take some doing.  I would have to implement something to:

1. Make them permanent and extra planes rather than the current simple swap algorithm

2. Make them removable from the unit

3. Make them replaceable on player request

4. Make them not replaceable for any other reason

That would be above and beyond when it's simple enough for the player to do it manually.

It would still be nice if their skins could be managed while in possession but given that they are as impermanent as they are I don't think that'll be possible either. But it's more than good enough that I can blag different planes for human use, the AI chaps will have to make do with what the LuftMinisterie has provided from now on. Thanks Pat.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Hetzer-JG51

[Highwayman]

Quick and easy fix for a spelling error when promoting a US pilot.

 

threrunto 

 

should be:

 

thereunto 

[No105_Swoose]

Salute! Flying Typhoons with 193 Squadron out of Diest in late September 1944.  Second mission in a row to attack ground targets in vicinity of Nijmegen.  Encountering a strange error both times.  All is well and normal up until appearance of red target icon followed by command "Angel! Patrol for ground targets on your own!"  Then, a few seconds later, all the Typhoons fire off their rockets, the red target icon changes to the yellow target egress marker, and leader calls "Angel! Rejoin formation and continue the mission!"  Strange.  I realize it could be a game problem vice a PWCG problem but want to make you aware of it.

Desktop.zip

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, No105_Swoose said:

Salute! Flying Typhoons with 193 Squadron out of Diest in late September 1944.  Second mission in a row to attack ground targets in vicinity of Nijmegen.  Encountering a strange error both times.  All is well and normal up until appearance of red target icon followed by command "Angel! Patrol for ground targets on your own!"  Then, a few seconds later, all the Typhoons fire off their rockets, the red target icon changes to the yellow target egress marker, and leader calls "Angel! Rejoin formation and continue the mission!"  Strange.  I realize it could be a game problem vice a PWCG problem but want to make you aware of it.

Desktop.zip 2.88 MB · 0 downloads

 

A recent change that I did was to make the AI stop attacking 30 seconds after the first element went bingo bombs (applies to rocket too).  The 30 seconds should allow attacks in progress to complete.  The idea is to stop lingering around the target area being blown to bits by AA.

 

So there is probably a condition that I am not understanding that is incorrectly triggering bingo bombs.  Could be me or could be something in the game.  Will have to see what the conditions are that cause the error and code PWCG not to do that.

[PatrickAWlson]

Of the recent issues, I fixed "threrunto ".  Now that the tough one is out of the way ...

[PatrickAWlson]

11 hours ago, No105_Swoose said:

All is well and normal up until appearance of red target icon followed by command "Angel! Patrol for ground targets on your own!"  Then, a few seconds later, all the Typhoons fire off their rockets, the red target icon changes to the yellow target egress marker, and leader calls "Angel! Rejoin formation and continue the mission!"  

Desktop.zip 2.88 MB · 1 download

 

Thanks for posting the mission.  It helped. I replayed it several times.  What was happening was an AA gun was damaging one of the flight members along the way.  He jettisoned rockets (Bingo count is 1) and turned for home.  Now you guys get to the target area and the counter activates.  it immediately triggers because one of the flight members has already gone bingo.  30 seconds later the attack is called off.

 

I used the ME to raised the bingo count and the attack went as expected.  What I am going to do, instead of a bingo count of 1,is a bingo count of flight size /2.  In a two or three man flight that will still cause the AI to jettison if only one turns back, but larger flights will be more resilient.

[No105_Swoose]

9 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Thanks for posting the mission.  It helped. I replayed it several times.  What was happening was an AA gun was damaging one of the flight members along the way.  He jettisoned rockets (Bingo count is 1) and turned for home.  Now you guys get to the target area and the counter activates.  it immediately triggers because one of the flight members has already gone bingo.  30 seconds later the attack is called off.

 

I used the ME to raised the bingo count and the attack went as expected.  What I am going to do, instead of a bingo count of 1,is a bingo count of flight size /2.  In a two or three man flight that will still cause the AI to jettison if only one turns back, but larger flights will be more resilient.

Very glad to help Pat!  Your fix will make for better missions.   PWCG has given me so many hours of flight sim enjoyment.  Keep up the great work!

[Highwayman]

Not really a new one as such, but we've had a couple of missions now in the vicinity of Duisburg. Each bridge there has a AAA emplacements, and Duisburg has a lot of bridges making the city a bit of a fortress. Again, no issues with that, it's great and makes it a bit of a gauntlet to approach it. What did stick out however was a lot of those emplacements were in the rivers, a good 40% of them.

[PatrickAWlson]

2 minutes ago, Highwayman said:

Not really a new one as such, but we've had a couple of missions now in the vicinity of Duisburg. Each bridge there has a AAA emplacements, and Duisburg has a lot of bridges making the city a bit of a fortress. Again, no issues with that, it's great and makes it a bit of a gauntlet to approach it. What did stick out however was a lot of those emplacements were in the rivers, a good 40% of them.

 

Been that way for 12 years.  At the moment (and for all time to date) PWCG does not have a reasonable way to determine terrain.  

[Highwayman]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Been that way for 12 years.  At the moment (and for all time to date) PWCG does not have a reasonable way to determine terrain.  

Yeah, I thought so, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to have templates for AAA for the larger cities and to prevent auto placement around the bridges to stop them spawning in odd places 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Highwayman

[PatrickAWlson]

10 hours ago, Highwayman said:

Yeah, I thought so, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to have templates for AAA for the larger cities and to prevent auto placement around the bridges to stop them spawning in odd places 

 

Possible, just hundreds of places to map.